F 73 
.8 

.04 M6 
Copy 1 



THE OLD STATE-HOUSE 

DEFENDED 
FKOM UNFOUNDED ATTACKS UPON ITS INTEGRITY. 



BEING A REPLY 

TO 

DR. G. H. MOORE^S SECOND PAPER, 

BEAD BEFORE THE BOSTONIAN SOCIETY, FEB. 9. 1886. 



BY 

WILLIAM H. WHITMORE. 



BOSTON 

1886. 



THE OLD STATE-HOUSE 




DEFENDED 
FEOM UNFOUNDED ATTACKS UPON ITS INTEGRITY. 



BEING A REPLY 

TO 

DE. G. H. MOOEE^S SECOND PAPEE, 

READ BEFORE THE BOSTONIAN SOCIETY, FEB. 9, 1886. 



BY 



WILLIAM H. WHITMOEE. 



^ ■•■ » 



BOSTON; 

1886. 



9. j^ckWe'lf'^t^.chi,, 



^73 



Fellow-Members of the Bostonian Society: — 

I feel obliged to make some reply to a pamphlet whicli has 
been sent to all our members, being a second paper relatmg 
to the Old State-House, read before our society February 9, 
1886, by Dr. George H. Moore. 

In a previous paper Dr. Moore asserted that "No such di- 
vision of the space on the second floor, as the present, existed 
at any time during the official use of the building by the 
Legislature, Colonial, Provincial, Revolutionary, or State. 

In 1885 I reprinted, by permission, this first paper m a 
new edition of the Memorial Volume respecting this build- 
inc issued by the city, and I made such denial of his assertion 
as"l thought warranted. This second paper is his reply, and 
it may seem to require a second rejoinder. 

I hasten to say that our society need not fear the result ot 
this second attack. Dr. Moore has not produced any new 
evidence, and we may continue to occupy these hal s, and to 
invite the public to view them, with a well-founded belie 
that in the main they are a faithful reproduction of what did 

exist. , . , „ 

I will add that the whole matter is a -tempest m a tea- 
not " The walls, the floors, and the window-spaces are what 
they were a century ago. Even the eastern hall is allowed, 
by Dr. Moore, to be the counterpart of the old Council Cham- 
ber The whole controversy falls under two heads : — 

First, did the Legislature, between 1776 and 1796, ever 
remove the lobby and stair-way which occupied eleven teet 
of the west end of Representatives' Hall? 

Second, was there a main stair-way in the centre of the 
building, between the Council Chamber and Representatives 
Hall '? If 90, was it, probably, a circular one ? 

Dr. Moore answers both of these questions in the negative, 



and with an amount of confidence which may impose upon 
the casual reader. But careful examination will show that 
this confidence is innate, and is shown throughout his essay 
without regard to the testimony to support it. 

" I only wish," said Lord Dudley, " that I was as sure of 
anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." 

As to the first point, there is no dispute that in 1776 the 
Legislature gave power to their committee "to make the 
alterations proposed, or such alterations as they shall judge 
best." • The plan proposed was to remove the partition 
within eleven feet of the west end of the building, to be 
used as a lobby and entry-way, with a gallery over the 
same, and stairs to go up in the north-west corner of the 
house. 

I admit that the new evidence produced by Dr. Moore 
(pp. 18, 19) shows that the galleries were continued; but, 
if I were captious, I could urge that his quotation on p. 19, 
from the Centinel of October 27, 1787, — " the galleries were 
crowded," — would imply more than one gallery, and there- 
fore a change from the plan of 1776. 

But all this is surmise, for no new witness has been found 
to show the size of the rooms. The account dated 1791, 
printed on pp. 63-4 of my Memorial Volume, remains as the 
only contemporary evidence. That account, as I stated^ says 
the length of the Representatives' Hall was fifty-seven and 
a half feet. Waiving for the moment the question of the 
accuracy of this account, what would these figures show? 
The known measurements would be : — ■ 

The west lobby 
Representatives' Hall . 
Council Chamber . 



11 


feet 


57^ 


u 


32 


a 


100^ 


u 


9^ 


u 



Leaving .... 

to make the total of 110 feet cited in the account. The re- 



suit is, that at most 9J feet, allowing nothing for partition 
walls, would be left for the eastern stair-way and the " con- 
venient lobby for committees [of the Senate] to transact 
business in," 

Now I would ask, is it reasonable to suppose that the only 
stair-way to the Council Chamber, a room occupied by the 
Governor as well, was planned and built in a space of 7 to 
10 feet in length ? This stair-way, also, was to furnish the 
principal entrance to Representatives' Hall, being the one 
nearest to the two main doors on the ground floor. The 
width was 32 feet, and if we allow one-half for the Council 
lobby (surely 16 X 9 feet is not a very large one), this 
stair-way, with landings on each side, was shut up in the 
similar space of 16 feet wide and 9 feet long. This is Dr. 
Moore's theory ; but I still deem it impossible. 

On the other hand, I suggested (Memorial Volume, p. 63) 
that for fifty-seven and one-half feet we read thirty-seven 
and a half, saying, that " evidently the writer put his notes 
of the measurements in figures, and either he or the printer 
mistook " them. I should suppose that no one could misun- 
derstand my argument, viz. : that the notes of the measure- 
ments were made in figures, but in extending for the press 
the figures were read as 57|, and printed " fifty-seven and 
one-half," according to my citation. Dr. Moore, however 
(pp. 57, 58), wastes much time and space in accusing me of 
an error which I did not make. 

I will add one more indication that the writer in 1791 
made notes in figures, and misread them in extending the 
measurements into words. He says of the building : ^' It is 
110 feet in length and thirty-eight in breadth." Now, in 
fact, the inside measurement is just about 110 feet. It may 
vary a foot, according to the exact points of measurement ; 
but it is only 32 feet in breadth inside, and it is not 38 feet 
outside, though of course nearer that figure. But, evidently, 
the writer meant to give both dimensions according to the 
same measure, inside or out. His 110-feet measure is inside, 



therefore his 38 was meant to be. But the true inside 
breadth is 32 or 33. Evidently it was so put down in figures 
and misread by the printer as 38, and so printed in words. 
Such a mistake is obvious, because he twice repeats that the 
width is thirty-two feet. 

Dr. Moore's little entry-way, moreover, allows notlihig for 
any access to the third story except by the narrow stair at 
the north-west corner. 



* The next point is in regard to a central circular stair-way. 
Dr. Moore says this was entirely a novelty, introduced by 
Isaiah Rogers at the renovation made in 1830. For this 
assertion there is no evidence whatever. Before we fortu- 
nately found the Rogers plan, the City Architect had de- 
molished the modern partitions on the second story, had torn 
out the modern central stair-way, and had removed the 
modern floors. He then found the opening of a different, 
central, circular stair-way, and he decided that all the work 
thereon, especially the iron-work, was of a period far ante- 
dating 1830. 

With all deference to Dr. Moore, I must say that the 
opinion of a skilled architect on such a matter, with the evi- 
dence before him, must outweigh a thousand times the theo- 
ries of a stranger. 

As to the Rogers plan I have given a fac-simile of it in my 
volume, and the original hangs on our walls. Every one can 
judge for himself whether we have rightly interpreted it. 

Dr. Moore insists that Rogers entirely altered the interior 
of the building. His only authority is one citation from the 
N. U. Palladium^ of September 24, 1830. He adds that 
" it is needless to multiply quotations from the press to the 
same effect." I would say that I defy him to produce any 
more extracts to this effect. I have had the newspapers 
searched carefully, without discovering another such item. 
They all speak of " rcpaiVs," as does Mayor Otis in his 
address. 



Lastly, I would point out tlie improbability that the 
architect of the building, after placing his two main doors m 
the centre of the two long sides, should have neglected to 
build a suitable central stair-way, whether circular or not. 1 
will call your attention to the fact that the window over 
each door has a greater width between it and its neighbors 
than exists between any other two windows. This arrange- 
ment is accounted for by the stair-way to the third floor on the 
east side; an arrangement evidently contemporaneous with 
the building and fatal to Dr. Moore's theory. I need hardly 
add, that, as usual, he denies this fact on his own unsupported 

authority. • xi, ^- 

As I began, so I close this part of my reply, by saying that 
Dr Moore has presented no new facts nor authorities ; that 
he has perverted his quotations, and that his arguments are 
both baseless and impossible. The whole question is trivial 
and assumes importance only from the mass of irrelevant 
matter dragged into the discussion and intended to obscure 
the main issue. The City of Boston may continue to boast 
that it has in its old State-House the most authentic and sat- 
isfactory relic of revolutionary times which is m any way 
connected with important events. 

Having disposed of the serious part of Dr. MooiVs 
charges, I desire to notice briefly the personal matters. No 
one doubts the learning or ability of the gentleman, but it is 
equally notorious that some unfortunate infirmity of spirit 
prevents liim from discussing literary matters with impartial- 
ity or courtesy. He is especially rancorous when he has an 
opportunity to assail any person or thing relating to Massa- 
chusetts, and he has recourse to ways in vogue m past 
centuries, but happily since discarded by literary men. The 
use of disparaging epithets applied to one s adversary ; the 
positive denial of adverse authorities ; the equally positive 
assertions, unaccompanied by proof ; the personal spite and 



enmity imported into the discussion — are relics of a barbarous 
past, now relegated to the columns of frontier newspapers. 

I understand the change from undeserved praise in his first 
paper to equally undeserved abuse in his second paper is 
due to the fact that, in reprinting the first essay, I omitted 
certain personalities which have nothing to do with the his- 
torical part of his discourse. On reflection, I abide by the 
opinion I then held, that it was unbecoming in a gentleman 
invited to deliver a discourse before a literary society to 
avail of that opportunity to assail the City Council of Bos- 
ton, to whose wise liberality that society was so greatly in- 
debted. I will now go farther and say that hardly any gen- 
tleman would have availed of such an opportunity to dispar- 
age the object which he was pretending to extol. Even if 
the severity of historical truth forced him to find errors in 
his entertainers' possessions, courtesy might have suggested 
better methods of pointing out the unwelcome facts. 

I shall not imitate him by replying to his sneers and mis- 
statements so far as they affect me personally. I make no 
claims to be an authority on the subject of the Old State- 
House ; and I shall gladly in the future avail of all the new 
facts presented by Dr. Moore or any one else. I am heartily 
glad that he has printed his two papers, and although many 
of his facts were known to me, and rejected as unsuitable to 
the limits of my oration, many more are both new and valu- 
able. 

As to my oration, I beg leave to add that it was prepared 
in accordance with a vote of the committee of the City Coun- 
cil, dated April 25, 1882 ; and that it was delivered from a 
printed copy, June 29, 1882. The limited time at my dis- 
posal in preparing it, or in revising it for the Memorial Volume, 
is my best excuse for any shortcomings. I wish it were bet- 
ter ; but, had we waited for such an address as others could 
have prepared, I fear it would have been a funeral oration over 
the remains of our greatly threatened building. 

WILLIAM H. WHITMORE. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 077 006 1 



